Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots

[taxi1]

lawful order

Just because it was the Colonel who called a Code Red, it doesn't mean you're (completely) absolved.

I expect lots of lawyers to use this line of argument to reduce the penalty, and I expect more than a few will cite Senator McConnell's comments at the end of the trial.

 

[Brett327]

Okay, putting on my sea-lawyer hat here, bear with me:

Would a lawyer defending a veteran, especially one who was enlisted, be able to put the Federal prosecutors in a catch-22 by claiming they were following what they believed to be a lawful order from a sitting President in defense of the constitution?

Would that put a judge, especially one who was a Clinton/Obama appointee, in the position of acknowledging personal liability for the actions of the rioters on the 6th, if they disagree with that argument? If you find the rioter was acting under their own volition, and not under the orders of a sitting President, does that not then absolve said President of culpability and set a precedent for any future liability defense for said president?

Woukd be an interesting argument to see from a creative lawyer...most of the people who did nothing more than illegally enter would be risking, at worst, a wrist slap either way...

I don't think you could argue that veterans are subject to orders from POTUS - lawful or otherwise. Also, someone can be incited to commit a crime without being legally obligated to follow the inciter's orders.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Even if they were active and were subject to his orders he also said to go peacefully and patriotically. If they missed that part and honestly thought he wanted them to storm the Capitol, that’s not a lawful order anyway.

 

[Griz882]

Okay, putting on my sea-lawyer hat here, bear with me:

Would a lawyer defending a veteran...

The best legal advice I know is that...”It is better to know the judge than to know the law.” I imagine that convictions will be quite an array of actions based on the mood of the judge and composition of the jury. Lost ( for now) in all of this was the retraction of the murder claim (primarily in the press) concerning the officer who died. This might have been a powerful no emotional tool in any prosecution. In the same way, video of a person breaking a window is far more damning than video of some huckleberry carrying a Trump flag and looking at paintings in the capital building.

 

[picklesuit]

I agree with taxi1, definitely hold the individual accountable...I’m more interested in whether there will be an effort to make a concerted groundwork for a civil defense of energy President Trump via these trials.

 

[Mos]

Okay, putting on my sea-lawyer hat here, bear with me:

Would a lawyer defending a veteran, especially one who was enlisted, be able to put the Federal prosecutors in a catch-22 by claiming they were following what they believed to be a lawful order from a sitting President in defense of the constitution?

Would that put a judge, especially one who was a Clinton/Obama appointee, in the position of acknowledging personal liability for the actions of the rioters on the 6th, if they disagree with that argument? If you find the rioter was acting under their own volition, and not under the orders of a sitting President, does that not then absolve said President of culpability and set a precedent for any future liability defense for said president?

Woukd be an interesting argument to see from a creative lawyer...most of the people who did nothing more than illegally enter would be risking, at worst, a wrist slap either way...

I'm just a sea lawyer as well, but my take is that this would seem to invite problems because 1) even if the argument could be successfully made that the president's inciteful action constituted a military order, wouldn't this just be a Neuremberg defense, and 2) making this argument would imply that the member was acting in some capacity as servicemember rather than as a private citizen at a political activity, which was illegal last I checked. If I were the veteran in question, I'd be nervous about my counsel going that direction.

 

[JTS11]

I'm guessing a vast majority will accept plea deals. The feds will want to make an example of the most visible ones (shaman dude, AF zip tie guy) and they will get some time in Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. I bet there will also be some that will be charged with conspiracy after they've hoovered up all their comms.

 

[ChuckMK23]

DNI Urged to Update Security Clearance Guidelines (Homeland Preparedness News, 2/11/21)

U.S. Reps. Jennifer Wexton (D-VA) and Jackie Speier (D-CA) are urging Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to adopt new security clearance guidelines to prevent individuals involved in extremist groups from accessing classified information. Specifically, Wexton and Speier are asking the DNI to update current guidelines to directly screen for threats from white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and other far-right extremists.

Currently, individuals are not explicitly required to self-report involvement with extremist groups unless the organization professes to be a terrorist organization, seeks to overthrow the United States government, or uses violence. “The ability of an individual to safeguard United States national security comes with a promise that they will protect all Americans and uphold our nation’s values,” Wexton and Speier wrote in a letter to Haines. “That ability is in doubt if there is reason to believe the individual supports or participates in activities that embrace hate, violent political ideologies, and far-right extremism.”

 

[Treetop Flyer]

DNI Urged to Update Security Clearance Guidelines (Homeland Preparedness News, 2/11/21)

U.S. Reps. Jennifer Wexton (D-VA) and Jackie Speier (D-CA) are urging Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to adopt new security clearance guidelines to prevent individuals involved in extremist groups from accessing classified information. Specifically, Wexton and Speier are asking the DNI to update current guidelines to directly screen for threats from white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and other far-right extremists.

Currently, individuals are not explicitly required to self-report involvement with extremist groups unless the organization professes to be a terrorist organization, seeks to overthrow the United States government, or uses violence. “The ability of an individual to safeguard United States national security comes with a promise that they will protect all Americans and uphold our nation’s values,” Wexton and Speier wrote in a letter to Haines. “That ability is in doubt if there is reason to believe the individual supports or participates in activities that embrace hate, violent political ideologies, and far-right extremism.”

So if the criteria isn’t violence or overthrow of the government, how does one define extremism? Further, why specifically target “far right extremism” instead of just “extremism”?

 

[jmcquate]

Further, why specifically target “far right extremism” instead of just “extremism”?

Interesting since almost every major national security breech in the west since the end of WWII was done by people with far left, and sometimes, extreme far left views.

 

[taxi1]

Interesting since almost every major national security breech in the west since the end of WWII was done by people with far left, and sometimes, extreme far left views.

Say what?

It's been Islamists (9-11, shootings) or Right Wingers (OKC bombing, lots of shootings) here in the states.

 

[Hair Warrior]

I thought we decided like 20 pages ago that the term for the pro-Trump Capitol rioters was “reactionaries” and the term for the BLM/Antifa rioters was “radicals.” They are so far left/right that the circle comes back around and meets in the middle with each other, and the words “left” and “right” are misnomers.

 

[jmcquate]

Say what?

It's been Islamists (9-11, shootings) or Right Wingers (OKC bombing, lots of shootings) here in the states.

Those are terrorist attacks. I was commenting on Treetop's post concerning security clearances.

 

[FrankTheTank]

What about Swalwell?

 

[taxi1]

Those are terrorist attacks. I was commenting on Treetop's post concerning security clearances.

Ahhh...But is that true?

Money grubbing seems to be behind most of them.